Here there be rants. There will be Freeman stuff, Lawful Rebellion stuff and Random stuff. I am rebelling because I want my country back. My lawful obligations are as follows: “together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they see fit…”
Article 61 Magna Carta 1215

January 12, 2010

Multi-tasking, Mis-employed, Or Interfering?

Twenty years ago, life seemed fairly normal.

Twenty-first century Britain Euro Regions 1-9 is are a little confusing. No-one seems to just do the job they are paid to do anymore. I have questions. Many questions. Regular readers know that I am a half-wit so I am asking some of you full-wits to help me out.

When did doctors become politicians? Why are they all concerning themselves with the running of the country when they are trained to diagnose faults and repair the human body? When, for that matter, did politicians become doctors? What business is it of theirs what I do, with whom, and how often? They were elected to serve the needs of their local constituents and to work with others of their ilk to construct and pass sensible legislation. Unless they are directly involved with health or the NHS I could care less what they think about my smoking, my drinking, my eating, and my sexual habits.

When did the judiciary turn into a business? When did they change from dispensing justice to collecting revenue for the Chancellor? When did it become a crime to defend your own home from chavvy marauders? When, exactly, did it become unfashionable to be a white man? When were scientists permitted to prostitute themselves for the "right" results? Really, what happened there? The answer is as simple as it always was. Money. There is no money in telling the truth. Experiments don't have to be reproduced, and we find, often, that the "debate is over". I wasn't taught that at school. I was taught that the debate is never over. Not as long as some doubt existed. Einstein once said (and I am paraphrasing here) "It doesn't matter if 99 scientists agree with me. If just one disagrees we go back and start over".

Perhaps we should treat these questions as rhetorical. It is what it is. I have been searching diligently for any vestige of the Britain that once was and I have to tell you, my country is unrecognisable. Trial by jury is on its way out. "They" say it's down to money, but those of us who have followed the shameful, criminal handover of our country to the unelected EU commission know better. This has nothing to do with money. These clowns have a Ph.D in money-wasting so it has to be for a different, darker reason. The Lisbon Treaty was clear: one law. Our ancient laws are to be phased out. The accused in this particular case should be grateful they are even getting to sit in a court room. The plan is to do it all by video soon. In the not too distant future, judges can take a "duvet day" and still continue a murder trial from their bedrooms. How lucky are we?

It will all get worse, of course. It always does. I don't "do" pessimism, because I would rather dwell on the positive. I am just having a hard time finding any positivity in our current, enforced direction.

Is it possible the sheeple have the right attitude? Are they taking the wisest course? Simply ignore everything and sit in front of the telly with their discounted 24 pack of Stella? Lock the door and forget everything that happens outside unless it affects them directly? The trouble with that is that they have to come out sometime. Then they will have to deal with it. While they were asleep another five thousand laws were passed, and another three hundred thousand EU regulations were put in place. But they will not know, and, judging by their level of observation today, they will not care either.

More of a ramble, this, than a rant, I admit. Sometimes a blog is useful for purging. It sort of parallels bulimia. If one continues to fill ones head with stuff, it has to come out somehow, for one to stay sane.

And no, the Sheeple do NOT have the right attitude. They do not have the equipment to develop an attitude. To develop an attitude requires neural pathways to be set up in the wide open spaces between their ears.

I have a suggestion to stop any of the parties getting in, I hope someone can pick it up and run with it.

It is this: install windows all around the polling stations. Instead of getting as far as the ballot box, the sheeple will be compelled to stop at the windows to lick them. If you install enough windows, the polling will be over by the time they've finished.

Here is a positive thought: the state's last option (at the moment) is prison. Prisons are of a finite size, and it takes time to build more. There don't need to be many of "us" before they haven't even got that last option. Just a thought.

Steve has even been arrested for refusing to wear clothes on a flight.

Hey surely that is what "they"/"the authorities"/"security folks"/misgov want all airline travellers to do now, isn't it?Get naked to see if they are T-risks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough"Gough was arrested again on Thursday 19 May 2006 at Edinburgh airport after removing his clothes during a flight from Southampton to Edinburgh and refusing to get dressed.[1] On 25 August 2006 he was given a seven month jail sentence.[2]"

Steve appreciates all the letters he receives and replies to all of them. They should now be addressed:

Stephen Gough Human Rights Political Prisoner No. 81590 Segregation Unit HMP Perth 3 Edinburgh Road PERTH PH2 8ATThe fight will continue until the Scottish authorities responsible for Steve's incarceration recognise his Human Right to Freedom of Expression and that Breach of the Peace requires more than simple nudity as determined by the Scottish judiciary.

No I wasn't taking the piss. Neither am I obsessed with his case. Just did multiple postings on the topic as I read more. OK put me in the naughty corner for not just doing one positing which covered it all.

I wasn't asking you about your views on nudity.

Sadly you seem to have missed my point in posting it. Bit worrying.

I was hoping you would see that he has broken no Common Law and would support the campaign for his freedom.

That is all. Hope you get the point now. If you still don't, I will explain it away by reasoning that your education was under nulabour and that you are younger than I assumed.

I keep telling you guys that I have the IQ of a clubbed seal, and you still don't believe me. You really have to be crystal clear!

Actually, while I was thinking about my answer, I considered that you were making a case for him. I have to agree that he does have a case and I cannot see where he caused harm, injury or loss to another human being so he has committed no crime.

We live in a society where clothes are required. We call it "decency". Many cultures around the world are not offended by human nakedness and I don't understand why we are. We may have different shaped bodies but we are all essentially the same.

I did not mean to be curt, and my suggestion that you seek help was tongue in cheek but it doesn't read the way it was thought. Sorry.

I can confirm that I am an old fart, and that I was not ejukayted under NuLabour.